September 17, 2007

A clash between religionists and UW students today. In the beginning, you see the boy holding a sign and some students questioning why that boy is not in school today. Then, watch for the old preacher switcheroo, and the weird transition from the subject of evolution to the subject of homosexuality. This is 3 minutes and 44 seconds of pure campus confrontation.

85 comments:

Maybe someone ought to agree with him about evolution and then point out that we are obviously all the progeny of extraterrestrials who visited the earth in U.F.O.'s and deposited their seeds (a la Eric von Daniken). I'd like to try that on one of those preachers just to see what kind of a loop it would throw him for.

The guy in the red shirt seemed to be on the GLBT issue from the git-go. Jed is looking pretty good here, but the guy with him seems new to this. The sched says they'll be there until the 27th. If he brought Sister Cindy, don't miss it. And get some more video - she's in her own league.

I love the "Only Jesus Saves. False Hopes: Being good." So apparently these people believe that being a complete asshole while believing in Jesus is better than being an atheist as well as the world's most altruistic, nice person.

I think it was last year, these guys had a sign listing out the types of people who were going to hell. A few of my favorites: "Rock-and-rollers," and either "working" or "uppity women." I think Ann qualifies as "uppity" so I guess she's going to hell :)

These guys just get more ridiculous every year. Though I seriously doubt it (since I have seen their equally ridiculous website), I have to wonder if this actually is one of the greatest street theater troupes of all time.

I love the "Only Jesus Saves. False Hopes: Being good." So apparently these people believe that being a complete asshole while believing in Jesus is better than being an atheist as well as the world's most altruistic, nice person.

You're right. Anyone who believes that is a complete idiot and a moral retard.

You do know that that sentiment is in the Bible, right? Jesus said it, more than once.

No belief in Jesus, no Heaven. Go straight to Hell. (Do not pass Purgatory. Do not spend time in Limbo. Do not collect $200.) Where you will be tortured for all eternity.

Because Jesus loves you.

Christianity: it's a lot like "Misery." You go ahead and pray to the big Kathy Bates in the sky. I'll spend my Sunday drinking beer and playing video games. Because I have a better-developed sense of compassion for my fellow human beings, instead of seeing them as pawns in some sort of game where people are trying to get into Heaven by following crazy rules.

You do know that that sentiment is in the Bible, right? Jesus said it, more than once.

Really? I thought Jesus was pretty clear that it's not a good idea to be an asshole. In fact the times he got angry were almost always about that topic. Love God. Love your neighbors. Don't be an asshole. That pretty much sums up the whole teaching.

How quickly these lost youths - brought up to believe in WHAT? exactly - are reduced to spewing expletives when confronted by a youth with faith. How unhappy they must be. All that privilege. All that emptiness. And how they can't stand it that someone, an underling, would pray for them. But they feel the worm. And it's turning.

Actually Pogo, speaking as someone who was present at more than a few of his "sermons," I'd say at least 90% of the audience is there for the entertainment provided (many people walking away will tell those people who haven't seen it yet to "check it out"). Yes, people shout expletives at them, but is that any worse than them telling everyone that they are evil and are going to burn in hell, (not to mention the number of times they derogatorily use "queer," "homo," "faggot" in their "sermons"). They spew excrement and hatred, so it is reasonable to expect that it will be returned in kind.

Well, as we have certainly seen on these comment boards many times, there are stupid people on both sides, as well as people who have decent ideas but can't articulate them, as well as those who can't articulate them without some expletives. The difference between the crowd and the preachers, however, is that many of the audience members will try to skillfully debate them, but as is often the case with hardcore fundamentalists of all stripes, their only response is "The Bible says so, I'm right, you're wrong."

Obviously, this can lead to some frustration, and additional expletives, but like I said, most of these people are there to "see the crazies," including most of those doing the swearing. Anyone who listens to a minute of "Brother Jed" and his folk can easily see how ridiculous they are, to the point of not even needing to debate them, and that usually leads to mockery (as I see you have felt many times with the more hardcore left-wingers around here). It's not a matter of not having a "core," just that it is basically pointless to say anything reasonable when facing an opponent who doesn't follow simple logic, decency, etc.

If this is the same guy who visited UCSD occasionally back when I was a student there, I can give you a simple answer why we were "unnerved" by him -- because he acted like a crazy homeless man. The first time I noticed him (I heard him shouting from the far side of the quad) I thought he was about to attack somebody.

ricpic said..."How quickly these lost youths - brought up to believe in WHAT? exactly - are reduced to spewing expletives when confronted by a youth with faith. How unhappy they must be. All that privilege. All that emptiness. And how they can't stand it that someone, an underling, would pray for them. But they feel the worm. And it's turning.

Great fun. I remember Brother Jed and also Sister Pat. I wonder if she is still alive.

They used to yell "you are all sinners" as we walked to class. The funny thing is that Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio are doing the same thing to us today from the TV.

It's hard to defeat the evidence for evolution. The creationists are off their rocker... still there is that little problem of the infinite point before the big bang... someone tell me where that "evolved" from?

Same goes for the "preacher." He doesn't like our message, don't stop on by and berate us. It's one thing for a Christian to say they will "pray for you," (which I am alright with, but as an atheist, obviously think is a stupid, pointless waste of their time) and another altogether to insult everyone walking by.

still there is that little problem of the infinite point before the big bang... someone tell me where that "evolved" from?

The main problem with that question is that time is a dimension of the universe, just like the radius is a dimension of a circle.

Picture a circle. At r=1 the area is π; at r=2 it is 4π; at r=3 it is 9π. At r=0, the area was 0. Now, along comes somebody and asks "what is the area of the circle when the radius is -1?". The answer, of course, is "there is no such thing as a circle with a radius of -1". Similarly, there is no such thing as "before the big bang".

Think of time as the "radius" of the universe -- as the value of time increases, the size of the universe gets bigger. When time was equal to 0, the size of the universe was zero. Where was the universe at time -1? Answer: there was no time -1. Basically, the big bang is best thought of not as the "beginning" of the universe, but as one of the outer *boundaries* of the universe.

Humans have a *really* hard time grasping this sort of idea (just like we have a really hard time grasping relativity), because we're used to the idea that time is completely independent of space -- time, from our perspective, something that we and everything else are passing through. That illusion works well for an intelligent monkey wandering around on a medium-sized planet, but it isn't actually true.

The difference between scientists and this guy is that a scientist will admit readily that there are always questions, that they don't have all the answers and that science itself evolves, rather than suddenly having all the answers and having nothing left to discover.

The most obvious example of this is the so-called 'missing link.' Creationists always like to point to the gaps in the evolutionary record as evidence that 'there are still some questions about evolution.' Well, of course there are. And no matter how many fossils are collected, and how much DNA is analyzed there will still be something which is unknown. But the real test is this: as more and more evidence is collected every day, there is not yet one shred which actually refutes the theory of evolution.

But simple and ignorant men will claim that they have all the answers, so I would therefore posit that many creationist preachers who won't accept that they may be wrong, are in fact simple and ignorant men.

Well said revenant. I however have always considered the conception of time as a fundamental quantity a convenience for the purpose of the modes in which we perceive. Let's say time doesn't exist, the usefulness of the concept is essentially to measure change. So we try to capture and measure change and it's rate by creating the concept time. If the above is true only irreversible changes require the notion of time. At this point the question can be rephrased as, "was there any change before the big bang?"

Pogo says: "Funny how easy it is for a simple preacher to ensnare students like this. I saw him at my daughter's school in Missouri. A vortex, he was. He thrived on the interactions, as did his kids in tow."

Before I spoke to the Board of Legislators,my friend Bill Ryan,chairman of the Board,came up to me to let me know how he felt about my last address before the Board ( see # 407,8-6-07). He thought I was challenging him and his autho- rity. But I assured him that that was not the case. In fact,I was challenging ALL men and women. And that was something HE said almost before I did. In keeping with my address below,I say that we (the whole world) have BIG problems facing each and every human being,no matter age,sex,race... In actual fact this address (below) is addressed to the Western world,theEastern world,the Middle East...(and I includeNorthandSouthAmerica,Europe,Russia,China,India, Japan,Africa...as well as all Arab,Turkish,Persian,Mongol... peoples (and ALL peoples) ,NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION THEY PROFESS TO BELIEVE IN.What I have to say has always been meant for the widest audience possible. To demonstrate my intent,I mention my many contacts with the CIA,the FBI,DIA...,that I am well known to the Israeli MOSSAD and,I have reason to believe,the intelligence services of Egypt,Saudi Arabia,Iran,Pakistan..., China,Russia,India,Korea... For I have always worked hard to let people know what I'm doing.

(My email has been acting up quite a bit.Perhaps its because I am anti-feminist,anti-gay,anti-lesbian,anti-ultra-liberal [without being too conservative,of course]...as well as anti-stupidity and anti-stupid people ? In any case,I've had to create new email addresses many times recently. So far my blog is still working (jewsyonkersislamiii-tc.blogspot.com) so all I put out is there ( #s 400and up I haven't been able to send out as I lost my old email address list BUT they are there for anyone to read). For anyone who is interested,I will post all my stuff there in case I have more problems)

Before I begin,I mention my call to Jodi Moisiello (who is running for Yonkers City Council,3rd dist., this year) at the Hezi Arris call-in radio show on WVOX ( New Rochelle,N.Y.) on Tuesday,9-11-07. It went something like this:

Hezi said "Good Morning" and I said " Hi,Hezi" whereupon he said " Hi,Tom "and then proceeded to tell me what I could not do...including hiding my attacks in innocuous language. Of course,I assured him that I wouldn't do that,adding that I " only wanted to speak to Jodi about her sneaky and underhanded attacks on her opponent John Murtagh ". Apparently that was enough for Hezi,for he said " Cut him off " and a few other well considered and palatable interjections... But why ?All I wanted to ask (was going to say) was : " Tell me,Jodi,is it just because you are a lawyer that you are sneaky and devious -or is it because you are a woman as well ". Now what could possibly be wrong with that ? It is a well known fact that lawyers and women are sneaky and devious.

My address to the Westchester County Board of Legislators:

" LA SHONA TOVA TIKU TEVA "

" Tomorrow is the 6th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing. And America is worse off today than before that attack // Whatever happened to America's greatness,its uniqueness ? // We have become soft and lazy and unwilling to take risks for a better future // And on this I agree with Osama bin Laden,although he -unlike me- has not called us wimps or girlymen or he-shes // Feminism has destroyed what was great about America. One result is that we've got a lot of bored,dissatisfied,hopeless and angry -mostly white- youngmen who -if they dont become gays- are perfect recruits for al Quaida in America// If you women are so much smarter than men,how could you have let this happen ? How could you let feminism rot America to the core ? // To ensure our survival,we need to embrace change. We must seek REDEMPTION to destroy the rot // I who have come back from the dead,who am burdened by that eternity which has never left me,tell you this // Unless we change // the human race may not survive 'til mid-century // And none of our current presidential candidates has what is necessary to bring about this necessary change,this redemption. "

Pogo,Trashing others is not Christian, but you apparently don't let that interfere with your bullshit insights into religion and belief.

You're just another loser who loves to pontificate about things of which you know little if anything.

Jumping on me is easy because you're surrounded by like minded right wing bigots, it makes you feel like one of the gang, and believe me, it just makes it that much more fun reading your silly insults and incoherent arguments.

(And yeah, I could have just privately e-mailed you, Althouse. On the other hand, I could have written a whole blog post in relevant regard. I chose to split the difference, commenting here, now, this once, and, in the interest of disclosure, one other place, just once. Fall-out accepted.

Here's what Pogo thinks of him: "Funny how easy it is for a simple preacher to ensnare students like this. I saw him at my daughter's school in Missouri. A vortex, he was. He thrived on the interactions, as did his kids in tow."

Time and space are internal forms of cognition. Consequently every thing we percieve is located in time and space. Just as every thing we see would appear to be colored if we had a pair colored glasses on that we could never remove, so it is with our internal forms of time and space.

Is it ever possible to get these time/space "glasses" off? Maybe that's what art and wild beauty are all about.

"The difference between scientists and this guy is that a scientist will admit readily that there are always questions, that they don't have all the answers and that science itself evolves, rather than suddenly having all the answers and having nothing left to discover."

Some people seem to have a psychological need, a real *need*, to have everything unambiguous. They exist on both ends of the evolution science/religion spectrum. There are those on the creationist end of it who insist that there are no questions. But there are those on the evolution/atheist end of it who insist the same. Science *has* the answers. Science *knows* the truth. DON'T QUESTION SCIENCE.

The most publicly noticeable of those today are the AGW people who utterly insist that the Truth handed down by Science must not be doubted nor questioned. (Not that everyone who believes in AGW is this way, but certainly many of them are.)

But there are those on the evolution/atheist end of it who insist the same. Science *has* the answers. Science *knows* the truth. DON'T QUESTION SCIENCE.

I'd like to raise a minor objection to that.

On the one hand, some people really do act like we currently have full scientific knowledge of everything. Those people are silly.

On the other hand, there is the idea that science as a process either has provided or will provide us with the answer to every question that HAS an answer. That, it seems to me, is a completely reasonable view, given our history as a species. It isn't provable, but it has held up so far. The need to invoke God to explain the apparently inexplicable diminishes every year, as questions that were strictly in the realm of metaphysics one generation become questions of empirical reality the next.

Hey, did you happen to catch what the guy in the dark blue coat/lighter blue shirt was doing with the two yellow plug things? When I saw him (at noon, and again at 4:30), he had two long, plastic tubes with some kind of plugs on the end, but I couldn't really understand what he was saying about him.

This isn't really related (it would probably fit best in the comments to the Kathy Griffin "suck it Jesus!" post, but that's too far down), and I guess this can go into the category of "crazy" Christians like Brother Jed

John Kitna apparently believes it was a "miracle that he was able to return from a mild concussion to win the game. Ah yes, because we all know God, while not using his omnipotence to help the starving or dying of the world, exercises his great powers to help the mediocre quarterback of the Detroit Lions win a crucial game against the Minnesota Vikings. And, as we all know, if there's one football team that has benefited from divine grace, it must be the Detroit Lions :)

Trolls give up finding their identity in their positive contributions. They don't stick out enough. They have nothing new to contribute besides more echoes. They have little positive influence.

So they turn. They become conflict. They become peace breakers. Putting themselves within a perceived place of opposition they secure their sense of self by the incited opposition. It is a martyr complex, the sort of thing we see in the middle east, or by street preachers on college campuses, or on popular blogs.

There is a small hope to convince others but that's not the driving force. Rather it is to see oneself as a noble defense of a cause, the lonely voice of truth.

Unfortunately as it temporarily secures the self-identity such a person becomes an inoculation against the philosophy they have chosen to support. People hear that ego-driven rhetoric, which has glimpses of the thoughtful and intelligent positive contributors, and are turned away from the whole by the part.

But that's okay. It's not about the cause. It's about trying an artificial means to become a real person.

That's why feeding a troll never works, either in blogs or on a campus. They thrive on the provocation and fear being ignored the most. Being ignored suggests the actual reality they don't at all matter. And that's is one of the most frightening realities for a human soul to face.

When will people learn not to feed the trolls? Why are good commenters getting all worked up over this? It's pointless. I keep telling people not to feed the trolls, but they do, and then they complain about me not making the trolls go away or they passive aggressively leave. I don't have time to weed the comments posts. You have no idea how long that would take. Stop feeding the trolls. It's age-old advice and everyone knows it. It's easy to do, because it consists of doing nothing. So just do it, ie, nothing. That would save you the trouble of all that feeding and of attacking me when I don't take care of the chaos that ensues.

The ones who agree on damn near everything or the ones who disagree with the majority? (Theo posts a long diatribe, saying he's leaving because Ann won't take charge, and rid the blog of those he feels are intellectually inferior or lean too far to the left or just plain do not agree with his premise. Well, boo-hoo...that's life, brother.)

If people are looking for less discourse or debate, I suggest they start writing op-eds and submitting them to news organizations. That way they won't be subjected to contrary positions or opinions.

I find the entire "troll" controversy to be little more than a case of the side who thinks it's right, whining about those who disagree or have an opinion of their own.

Visit liberal blogs and they bitch about conservative "trolls.' Visit conservative blogs and they bitch about liberal "trolls."

I've said it before and will say it again; if you don't like someone's comment or attack or whatever you want to call it...IGNORE it and move on (no pun intended).

It seems to me that Theo was posting something about "trolls" over at AmbivaBlog back in March 2007 (when I first started reading Amba's blog). Let me see if I can remember what he said...

I'm a bit of a refugee from Althouse. I've tried to be a regular commenter there, but her blog is now swarming with lefty trolls, and many of the better regulars have drifted away. I plan to join them.